Even the liberal New York Times thinks that the Obama Administration might have hurt itself by delaying calling the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens “terrorism”. Grandpa John McCain thinks it’s “disgraceful”.

From what I can tell, it’s clear that, for some reason, the Obama Administration wanted to soft-pedal the terrorism angle, and Obama himself was quite reluctant to admit that the attack was terrorism rather than part of a protest over a YouTube video. Does anyone really believe that there’s some kind of election-altering political issue here surrounding some garden-variety White House dissembling?

Obviously, this raises a whole bunch of legitimate foreign policy issues, but the politics of it seem pretty straightforward. Barring some kind of smoking gun, I don’t see much political danger to Obama, especially since Romney is hiding in the corner after he fucked up his initial response.

Politically it’s better for him if it was terrorism (nothing but the usual going on here) than mob violence (“proof” that he shouldn’t have helped those Lousy Stinking Hajjis and fucked up on foreign policy). Whatever the reason for his reluctance, election year politics wasn’t it.

There’s a not insignificant difference between the statements “White House May Have Hurt Obama’s Electoral Chances…” and “White House Did the Wrong Thing.” The Diplomatic and military response to the murder of the Ambassador and true public statements about the murder of the Ambassador are two completely different things. That’s why we have a fucking diplomatic corps in the first place: so our leadership doesn’t just say the first fucking thing that comes to mind when there is a brewing international incident. Proper responses from a proper leadership:

We are monitoring a complex situation closely and working with our allies…

Improper response:

What the fucking fuck? TErrorism again??? Holy shit what do we do now???? What does Ewick Ewickson and Jennifer Rubin tell us to do????

Well, politics aside– unlikely, I know– It’s a good thing to be cautious about attributing events to ‘terrorism’ before you’ve identified any actual terrorist involvement. I don’t see how Obama is weakened by being cautious in foreign policy– but I’m a partisan, so my opinion doesn’t count.

Given that many of the critics are the same ones who said Obama should have kept quiet for few weeks over the killing of Osama in order to get maximum advantage over the intell, I think we’re back in the double standard world.

It would have been impossible to keep Osama’s death quiet but I wonder if the White House was playing this one low keyed for the intelligence value. Why would we rush out to provide the name/address/phone number and favorite sports team of this particular group of terrorists, if by keeping quiet we improved our chances of catching them?

I think Republicans tend to think that them leading is some kind of manifest destiny, so they expect some election-altering surprise that totally changes the election so they win. As a result, they tend to jump both feet in on any potential scandal (when demands resignations come from people other than Newt, for example), regardless of its scope. This is just another Fast & Furious, with McCain playing the role of Issa.

Now I understand what my wingnut bro was posting about on FB last night. Obama didn’t call it a terrorist attack because he is too lazy (and near) to go to intelligence briefings and he’s also busy apologizing for savage Mooslems who hate us for our freedumbs.

Regardless of the motivations behind the WH reluctance to call it “terrizm! – run fer yer livez!”, the president always has the old “I like to know what the hell I’m talking about before I shoot my mouth off” rejoinder available to him, which I believe he has used to good effect before.

Let’s see. We could use useless words to describe a situation, or we could do what is necessary to aid in catching the perpetrators. It’s nice to know the Republicans are all about useless gestures while our president is about getting the job done.

I mean, imagine if, after every shooting, the police chief got up in front of a camera and stated another case of domestic terrorism has occurred. It would add how much value to the search?

This is more of the same bullshit that is like, Obama loves Muslims, so he is reluctant to brand them terrorists, even though everyone knows that all terrorists are Muslims. The swing voters will give it a big yawn.

This is the most nothing nothingburger I have ever heard of. Immediately after the incident, they didn’t know what had happened. They were cautious about labeling it. After a few days, when it was more clear what had happened, they took a bit more time to figure out how they wanted to communicate about it publicly, then they did. In the meantime, so what? Who or what was harmed by waiting a few days until they really knew what had happened before they started shooting off their mouths about it? (Unlike Mitt, obviously.)

Seems to me the first need was to douse the fires of anger that were hot-flashing in the region. Screaming “TERRORISM!” though perhaps true and known, would have added fuel to those fires. So they soft-peddled a bit.

Denouncing the video was a good Diplomatic tool, that had real effect inasmuch as POTUS could relate “Official Concern,” and buy some time to craft a very thorough response at the proper time.

I would imagine that as the INTEL came in, strategies and tactics were developed to better get to the truth, and to the perps. At least I’d like to think so.

@Glidwrith: It’s not really a good way to hide Romney’s foreign policy weaknesses. On the one hand you have a circumspect Obama while on the other hand you have Mitt Romney who either cowers in fear or shoots his mouth off saying profoundly inappropriate things.

This is all about a corrupt media trying to salvage the flailing Romney campaign. Fuck them.

We could use useless words to describe a situation, or we could do what is necessary to aid in catching the perpetrators.

That’s kind of a problem. We can’t do anything to help catch the perpetrators because Libya is such a mess. AC360 did, for once, a solid segment earlier in the week on this: the FBI investigative teams sent to Libya haven’t even been given access to the crime scene or the suspects yet, essentially because there’s nobody really in charge that the State Department can get permission from.

New York Times is full of shit. They’re just looking for a controversy. Shouldn’t the administration gather all the facts before they label the attack? Also, to my knowledge most people believed this was a terrorist attack. The RMS and other shows that I watched after the attack reported it that way, so, what is the issue?

The thing is, I think that there IS plenty of valid criticism which can (and should) be leveled at the Administration over the Benghazi murders: poor intel work in Libya and sloppy security procedures, etc. But as usual, the Obama-bashers have concentrated on a peripheral (and mainly bullshit, IMO) issue – not helped by Mitt Romney’s idiot gaffes – and ended up focusing media attention on a trivial point which can be easily refuted.

I think the NYT is just indulging in a mild bout of O-bashing here themselves, probably to keep the “in the tank for Obama” criticism to a minimum. Not that it will help with the wingers, but it makes good copy.

Romney will get destroyed in a foreign policy debate. The guy has zero and I mean zero experience, and lacks any knowledge based on his flip flops, trusting former Bush advisers,and making a fool of himself around the world. Even the president had some foreign policy experience when he served on the committee when he was Senator. And with the President’s record and high approval numbers in this field I would just forfeit if I were Romney.

When it comes to Libya the only one buying into this garbage are the right wing nuts and the media. The majority of Americans don’t see it their way.

@beltane: Agreed in all points-especially the fuck. This looks like classic Fauxism where you know the truth, I know the truth and the media knows the truth, but they have to throw chaff into the air to keep Robme afloat a little longer.

It would have been much worse on Obama, both politically and personally, if the killing had been perpetrated by Libyans turning against him and his country. It would have been politically advantageous for him to declare terrorism right away and use that for cover.

But he didn’t. He waited until they had some facts and then made his statements.

The real question is whether US actions during the fact-finding interim were hampered by Obama’s reluctance to perform the required incantation.

That’s kind of a problem. We can’t do anything to help catch the perpetrators because Libya is such a mess. AC360 did, for once, a solid segment earlier in the week on this: the FBI investigative teams sent to Libya haven’t even been given access to the crime scene or the suspects yet, essentially because there’s nobody really in charge that the State Department can get permission from.

Well, we do seem to have some allies there. That group that stormed the Militia compound, for example. There was something not-quite spontaneous about that. State and the INTEL Community are working their assets off right now.

(Sorry, I tend to want to beat the FBI’s head into a wall whenever they get involved outside of their jurisdiction. They already turned Central America into a total mess with their role as “advisers” on the gang problem: maybe we shouldn’t be using them in situations they’re not supposed to be in in the first place).

Fuck the liberal NYT. This is more moronic MSM false equivalency, desperately trying to give Rmoney some solace after HE totally screwed the pooch by jumping the gun and making the story about his mind blowing stupidity, not about anything Obama did.

Cripes. This nonsense that Obama took too long to call it “terrorism” (the fucking NAZIS called Allied bombing of Germany “terrorism”, for the love of Godwin) somehow politically hurts him is a pathetic attempt at ignoring the giant elephant in fishnet stockings and garters in the room.

Holy fuck this is stupid. An attack happened, confusion over what the attack was was unclear. Does it matter what the POTUS Calls it? For Fuck’s sake I’m glad that we no longer yell terrorism at every chance we get!!

Why the Fuck is this an issue that ETL-NYT is writing about? How the fuck does Right wing radio and conspiracy theory sites keep leaching into the rational conversation. Fuck I hate journalists.

Wow. Waiting till you have the facts and evidence before you discuss sensitive and potentially dangerous situations? Obama really should be impeached.

On whichever Sunday shows John McCain is on this week, it would be just fucking splendid if someone asked him how we would pay for any of the three additional wars he’s calling for, and who exactly he wants to fight them.

NYT just trying to create a new storyline, but it’s like trying to make a big deal of SW Lousiana getting a first down when they’re down 63-3 to Alabama’s third string. It will go nowhere, likely ending with a 4 and out or another Romney fumble trying to execute a flea flicker using the left tackle. They’ll then cut away to a human interest story about suffering bond traders.

The day after the attack, Obama announced that he had ordered a review of the security at all US embassies. In the NYT, it was stated that Hillary Clinton ordered the review and Thomas Pickering was doing it.
The State Department has to do an investigation by law. There is a group to do this and Hillary Clinton picked Thomas Pickering.
The Intelligence coordinator took the blame today for the confusion about the attack.
Hillary Clinton was like a jack in the box, popping out with little statements about the attack. That didn’t help.
Obama has been giving information. He could have said nothing and then the whine would be that he was hiding information.

For years now the concept of the publics right to know has struck me as bullshit. Who cares what they call it to the public as long as they do their job. John Q Idiot hearing something in Libya is called terrorism doesn’t really mean anything.

Mitt either received intelligence briefings and decided to shut his mouth or is waiting until the last debate.
Intelligence evolves, always has and always will. Did it take the President to long to share what he heard, I don’t know.

This whole thing strikes me as beyond stupid, even for wingnuts. I have no idea what the NYT believes it is doing. Within hours and just from the media reports, it was clear this was a planned, well-coordinated attack that had used the protests as cover. The only real question was who was responsible for it. If the administration didn’t come out and say this, a competent media would ask what was to be gained by the administration, which has shown itself to be very competent in such matters, to dissemble in the fashion it chose to.

ETA: Given that the NYT is not usually quite this clueless in covering international situations, I have to wonder if this was planted to mislead the attackers as to where the US investigation actually is.

The press will pursue the story because they want an “October Surprise”. The GOP will pursue the softy, asleep, didn’t protect us Obama angle because they got nothing. (tho does that make him another asleep kind of guy like W?) Romney camp need something to discuss besides how they’re losing today more than yesterday.

The President can use his “we will bring the perps to Justice” angle. He said that right after the attack, and loudly ever since.

He never ruled out terrorism. Justice implies that possibility. But President’s don’t go mouthing off half-informed like Romney did. They find out what really happened, so that they don’t create more problems by speaking too soon,

The press will pursue the story because they want an “October Surprise”. The GOP will pursue the softy, asleep, didn’t protect us Obama angle because they got nothing. (tho does that make him another asleep kind of guy like W?) Romney camp need something to discuss besides how they’re losing today more than yesterday.

The President can use his “we will bring the perps to Justice” angle. He said that right after the attack, and loudly ever since.

He never ruled out terrorism. Justice implies that possibility. But President’s don’t go mouthing off half-informed like Romney did. They find out what really happened, so that they don’t create more problems by speaking too soon,

If Obama had responded with sending in a Marine expeditionary force backed by a Carrier Battle Group then the Republicans would have howled that he should have sent those assets to attack Iran. Why? Because, you know, if we just subdue those pesky Iranians then everything will suddenly be cool in the ME.

When you consider that the Republicans don’t actually have a domestic policy, the notion of them giving foreign policy advice is both ludicrous and frightening.

Immediately after the incident, they didn’t know what had happened. They were cautious about labeling it. After a few days, when it was more clear what had happened, they took a bit more time to figure out how they wanted to communicate about it publicly, then they did. In the meantime, so what? Who or what was harmed by waiting a few days until they really knew what had happened before they started shooting off their mouths about it?

Anyone else remember how when the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was bombed how the immediate speculation was that it was dirty Muslim terrorists that did it?

Once it turned out it was a conservative white guy, everyone shut up right quick. In Romneyland, the bombers would be heading to Tehran.

Does anyone really believe that there’s some kind of election-altering political issue here surrounding some garden-variety White House dissembling?

There were 18,000 stories coming out of Libya, and the US was thin on the ground in Libya so it was hard to push a bunch of investigators into the mix. Meantime, they were trying to avoid adding fuel to the fire over the stupid fucking Youtube flick.

If there’s a failure down here, it’s that the CIA types tasked with this sort of thing failed to pick up a newspaper.

We were in a health-care facility yesterday on a six-hour quest to help our aged aunt, and CNN was blaring about this in the waiting room, as if Romney were now about to be elected because the Obama administration didn’t immediately announce that it was terrorism. I thought it must be Fox News, but it was CNN. I started to yell at the screen but realized it wasn’t the time or place. I still don’t have time to go into this story to figure out why this should be so damaging to Obama, so I’m hoping to get the Balloon Juice take on it later.

I didn’t know that. I haven’t watched that show in years, but in the clips he does seem to have ratcheted up the crotchety old man. I did see a clip last week, and his round table included not just David Gergen, but Peggy Noonan, and some other white guy of similar vintage. It was like a blogger-parody. Then again, apparently Ann Coulter is a regular on the ABC show, which must have Brinkley spinning in his grave.

@Villago Delenda Est: Yep. All of them are GOP shills. It won’t matter because Obama is going to destroy Romney in those debates. The media continues to put down Obama’s debating skills.

I’ve seen Romney debate before and he sucks. He got schooled by Ted Kennedy in his Mass. Senate run, in 2007-2008 McCain, Old man Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee made Romney look like a bumbling fool. And even idiots like Rick Perry got under his skin and he made a number of gaffes.

This fabric from whole cloth is just window dressing. I’m still waiting to know whether Nakoula is gonna be dinged for parole violation. He was banned from the internet, and clearly is a violator. What’s the hold-up? If he walks I’m smelling something rotten in Denmark.

The NYT’s remain cowards, kowtowing to the wingnut mob. I have never thought that terrorist attacks overseas, even on our citizens, creates a negative response on a president. Especially an embassy in a war zone. Green Zone, hello wingnut.

Did that moron even check the polls since the attack? Before writing this story.

FoxNews and Romney put up code red so quickly after the event that it’s difficult for them to turn the volume up any higher now. Plus, they can’t decide whether this is worse than disrepecting Bibi Netanyahu.

As for disengaged American public, no NYC skyscrapers came down and we didn’t lose any more people than we do on a Wednesday in Afghanistan, so this looks like the same confusing North African/Middle Eastern clusterfk they normally see on their TV screens. All of them seem unrelated to Medicare, so it’s (as noted above) a nothingburger if you’re not a right winger, and simply reason number 398,765 to impeach Obama and deport him to Kenya if you are a right winger.

Neither the right wingers nor the disengaged Amercian public reads the NYT.

@Linda Featheringill: Again, McCain just always takes the position that the opposite of what the president is doing in the middle east is the right thing, and that what Obama is doing is wrong no matter what. Even if Obama changes course and does what McCain had recommended 15 minutes before, McCain will say it is wrong.

@Or something like that.Suffern Ace: I disagree. Obama is very adept at turning even hostile questions like that around. The guy just comes off as cool and collected. Romney is the opposite.

I’m sorry but I’ve seen Romney debate and the guy is not that good. At best he will be average. But Obama will hit him over the head with Taxes, the Auto bailout, the fact he didn’t want to go after Bin Laden, and Medicare privatization that he and Ryan support.

the only thing I’m worried about with the debates, and I’m not so much “worried” as pre-emptively annoyed, is that WIllard will tell some bald-faced lie, and as with this case, the SCLM will run with it as their new Concern.

The point of all this is the Republicans are trying to turn this into an attempted White House coverup. They’ve already been saying it, including Romney yesterday, who moderated it a bit, stating that we have to find out if the discrepancy in the stories was because of initial confusion or an attempt by the White House to “paper over” what really happened.

The reason it’s important to the GOPers that it be terrorism is their contention that the White House ignored warnings about potential attacks in Libya. If it was terrorism, the White House, according to them, was fatally negligent. If it was spontaneous, unforeseen violence that resulted from the film protest, then it’s harder for them to make that charge against Obama.

Interesting that they’re trying to tie this into the pathetic “he doesn’t get his daily intel report in person” they’ve been trying to push. But trying to flip the script on the “Bush didn’t heed early warnings on 9/11” to PBO didn’t heed suposed early warnings on Libya seems like SOP for the Rovians.

The thing that is being ignored is the reaction in Benghazi was sorrow and anger at the attackers, not at the US.

Yeah, I know. I’ve put that up a couple places on facebook, that’s about all I can do to get the word out… wish some news agencies would get into it, but I know, that doesn’t get as many eyeballs as the “ZOMG Lousy Stinking Hajjis are Lousy Stinking Hajjis!” narrative.

Ah, Huckabee. Say, were you calling for impeachment when the previous government lied to the entire world and then used the lie to kill thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians? No? Good sense of priorities there.

hm. well, i suppose it might be worth considering that the reasons behind this whole obama response scenario might well have been diplomatic instead of political.

or at least, in addition to political.

i mean, think for a moment just how the world at large might have responded had the terrorism assessment been released right away. i don’t know, i’m no diplomat, but it’s easy for me to sort of map this out across various mid-east countries and over time to consider how an immediate announcement that this was the act of a qaeda splinter group might have been taken as (a) a deliberate distraction intended for the protesters, and (b) therefore not taken as seriously. given how much we knew at that point, one agenda had to have been to make sure this was not twisted into some kind of snarky ‘cry wolf’ oblivion. moreover, though they may well have been pretty certain about this assessment right away, it would seem – for the reasons stated above – that taking some time to be absolutely certain would be at the very least prudent.

finally, i am not at all sure what nay-sayers feel there would be gained by jumping on the qaeda angle right away. stevens himself had warned about this growing group as far back as last summer, and he knew well what to expect. it’s not like this was a total surprise, but not at all one that required calling press conferences to bray to the world.

these matters must be handled delicately. this is a point that seems to be totally lost on most of those reacting to international situations from the right. and evidently, some from the left, as well. as far as i can tell, the big complaint (prompting huckabee and hannity and others to call for impeachment; but not bush, really??) is that obama supposedly lied about this for political/campaign reasons. to that i say, total BS. watch the joint press conference he did with hillary right after the incident; you will note that they both stepped very carefully around huge potential international landmines in order to avoid making knee-jerk accusations in such an inflammatory international situation. they did not lie; in fact, they planted the seeds for the possibility that it was more than a protest out of control. in fact, it was that press conference that made me aware that they suspected more than they could let on at that time. if memory serves, they both also noted that it was libyans who tried to save stevens and took him to the hospital.

and as it happens, the rightwing complaints of ‘ignoring warnings’ fall flat because stevens was there in benghazi (and not in tripoli at the embassy) for the express purpose of getting our folks safe – and out of there, if necessary – precisely because he knew of the dangers, especially in light of the growing protests; circumstances were too perfect for qaeda types to exploit.

and, of course, 9/11.

sorry for this longwinded response, but it was cathartic, as i get so incensed at the blatant ineptitude shown by the supposedly sophisticated and savvy rightwing media on all matters international and diplomatic. to them, all the world’s a nail just begging for our military might to hammer into submission.

stevens was there in benghazi (and not in tripoli at the embassy) for the express purpose of getting our folks safe – and out of there, if necessary – precisely because he knew of the dangers, especially in light of the growing protests; circumstances were too perfect for qaeda types to exploit.

Yes, but it does seem strange,knowing the dangers, that the compound where Stevens lived was open and accessible, with just two (albeit, former SEALS) security members, in attendance. There was something I read indicating the concerted attack was sudden, and not brewing over time.

It’s strange he was a third-striker in 2010, and received parole, at all.

In California, “three strikes” only applies to violent crime, which is generally interpreted to be crime that’s committed in person. So stealing a pack of batteries from a drugstore makes you eligible for life without parole, but using the internet to bilk people out of their money does not.

@Glidwrith: the great irony is that if Romney had simply shown some decency and class (as Bush I and Reagan did in ’80), by now his surrogates could be crucifying Obama after this, but in his eagerness to exploit just the sort of incident he was shown hoping for in the 47% tape, he stepped on his own dick and inoculated Obama, possibly blowing his one chance to “change the game” this year.

“Non-violent” =/= financial fraud. If you read what I wrote, you might have noticed that the law considers any in-person crime — including, as I said, stealing a $10 pack of batteries from a drugstore — to be a “violent crime” by definition. That Stanford link lists a few other things their clients have been convicted of that count as “violent crimes” under the law:

Past and current project clients have been given life sentences for minor offenses including stealing one dollar in loose change from a parked car, possessing less than a gram of narcotics, and attempting to break into a soup kitchen.

Bilking people out of their money over the internet does not count as a “violent crime” under the law because a “violent crime” has to be committed in person. So, no, there is no “three strikes” for embezzelment or financial fraud.

I’m not arguing that it’s a good law — clearly, anything that sends people to prison for life for stealing $10 worth of goods is a very bad law. But you seem to not realize that the dollar amount stolen is not what makes something a “violent crime” under the law as it currently stands. It becomes a “violent crime” if you commit the crime in person.

So, what, an attack that might *just possibly* have been random should be called “terrorism” immediately?

Someone picked my pocket on a New York subway! I’VE BEEN HIT BY TERRORISTS! Someone spit on my sidewalk! OMG BIOLOGICAL WARFARE! BY TERRORISTS! A bird pooped on my windshield… TERRORISTS ARE CONTROLLING THE ANIMALS NOW!

NYT ‘journalist’ Mark Landler now claims that cautious approach to a chaotic situation will be used by Obama’s opponents and then Landler’s report is in turn used by right-wingers to push their inevitable narrative?

Anyone have the time to see if Landler’s manipulative writing has helped push the right-wing’s narrative before?

* Put an asterisk by Mark Landler’s name, he appears to have just pushed a manipulative right-wing attack on Obama.

@Villago Delenda Est:
Pack up a little bag. We’re going to Paris and we are bringing the Republican Party along. We go on top of Notre Dame and call down, Hey, guys, come on over here. The oil should be hot enough by then.

these matters must be handled delicately. this is a point that seems to be totally lost on most of those reacting to international situations from the right.

When I heard the term “neocon” described in one of my undergrad classes, the shorthand was basically that they were intellectuals (many of them originally Democrats) who saw every foreign policy crisis through the prism of World War Two – every new opponent is the new Hitler, and we should always react exactly as we did after Pearl Harbor.

Which to some extent is a thought process that’s infected a large part of the public for the last seventy years. Having seen us conduct a total war leading to total victory in World War Two, lots of people simply don’t understand why we can’t or shouldn’t react to every problem in exactly the same way. Explains the proliferation of conspiracy theorists arguing that if we didn’t defeat the enemy, conquer his capital and install a successful democracy within a few years of the original crisis (Berlin crisis, Chinese revolution, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Iran, you name it) it can only be because some shadowy cabals in Washington are plotting to stab us in the back.

If those people had been in charge after Benghazi, we already would’ve indiscriminately bombed a bunch of Libyan targets already, and one of our newest alliances would be down the drain.

@monkeyfister: Stormed the militia compound they figured were the guilty parties and chased the militia out of Benghazi, then stormed another militia compound, unarmed, and suffered 3 dead and numerous wounded. Others went to the consulate and found bodies and the consul still living, although dying. The locals provided many quotes about how he loved the Libyans and they loved him.

There are apparently many former militia groups not disbanded in the region, and many ordinary citizens are sick of them.

It’s the number one source of complaints in Libya, understandably so. The government came out this week and said that the militias had to either disband or integrate into the government. The paradox is that they need at least some of them on their side or they’ll never be able to bring things under control (and of course, the fact that militia thugs have started wearing a uniform and getting a government paycheck doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to stop acting like thugs. Hell, witness the NYPD).

In short, they’re building a nation. No easy task, especially when the last person who succeeded in building a strong central government used it the way he did.

Somehow I have the feeling that the President will have an erudite and succinct answer that will put all this bullshit to rest. I hope so, anyway.

This non-scandal only excites wingnuts and their representatives in Congress. The Admin bungled the messaging and consistency of same from the start, but they haven’t been hiding or covering up anything major, IMO.

None of that will stop the media from fapping and making it as much of a “thing” as they can. That’s where the danger lies, that the narrative gets out of control for the Admin.

Also, too, I wanted to say “I told you so” that things like our deep involvement in Libya would come back home to roost in ways we don’t expect or have the ability to foresee. This is exactly the kind of thing I kept yammering about. I know no one gives a shit, but whatever. This shit is dangerous in all kinds of ways.

@Chris: I agree, and I wish the Libyans well. From what I’ve read, Benghazi and eastern Libya in general are religiously conservative, and the Libyans who wound up in Afghanistan were from there; Gaddafi made changes in official Islamic practice that did not sit well with many.

Which is why I was so heartened to read (AP via Comcast, I think) of the people there saying such lovely comments about the consul and the US.

if i’m not mistaken, ben, the compound of which you speak was not where stevens lived. as i pointed out, he lived in tripoli in the US embassy; the attack took place in the consulate in benghazi, near the village he had earlier noted was harboring this burgeoning qaeda group.

in short, the attack did not take place where he lived; he did not live in benghazi.

also, i’m not sure how to address your descriptions of a “sudden” attack and “brewing over time”; they are not necessarily orthogonal. stevens himself (again, as i noted) had written an email to document this growing group of qaeda sympathizers getting trained in a nearby village (exposed in last year’s wikileaks diplomatic dump). CNN (apparently against all sense of journalistic decency) noted he expressed concerns he was on their hit list in his personal journal. so this was most definitely “brewing.”

however, tho those sentiments might have been brewing, a “sudden” attack may have seemed imminent or at least likely due to (a) the cairo uprising, (b) some immediate intelligence to which stevens was made privy, hence his decision to personally leave tripoli to help with protecting/evacuating the benghazi consulate, (c) a benghazi protest to the film earlier that evening, and (d) 9/11.

forgive me if i’m missing your point; it’s late here and i still have work to do. thx for your comment, tho.